PROOF OF THE NORMANS


Evidence in Person
Witness

Commencing 28th March 1996

at the

A259 Bexhill to Hastings Bypass Public Inquiry
  1. Intentionally witheld
  2. These businesses are all based at intentionally witheld.
  3. To my knowledge none of the routes discussed in my evidence have any noticeable effect on me, where I live, the property I work from or my businesses. In consequence I give evidence here in a position as an unaffected third party. I hope therefore that it will be acknowledged by the Highways Agency and the Inspector that I have no personal axe to grind and the evidence I wish to present is motivated by a deep seated desire to know exactly where the Normans landed prior to the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
  4. At the time this quest started, over six years ago, I had no idea that I would need to be sitting here presenting evidence to a public Inquiry. I am not a good public speaker and have dreaded facing what to many, including myself, consider to be the equivalent of an ordeal by fire. I had hoped that having given the Highways Agency the necessary time, prior to the Inquiry, to investigate properly my claims that I should not have needed to do this. Only as a result of the intransigence of the planning process have I been forced to compile my case, long before I should have wished to, in order to ensure that the integrity of the site that I have identified as the Norman landing and camp site is preserved.
  5. It is my case that the site at Upper Wilting Farm, which sits on the boundary between Rother District Council and Hastings Borough Council, adjacent to the proposed Mayfield interchange is the site of the Norman Invasion of 1066 and holds the remains of the first camp of William the Conqueror.
  6. Before proceeding further I think it would be helpful to those present to look at the site on the map. There are over 200 acres in total and it can be seen on this plan marked in pink. (Plan 35 NA bundle page 143 - a copy is available here). This is the plan used by the Oxford Archaeological Field Walking Survey, which I shall refer to later. The line of the road proposed by the Highways Agency can be seen running left to right through fields marked 841 and 842 in the Survey.
  7. I shall seek to present my case here, with the assistance of expert appraisal in the form of written evidence from eminent historians who have studied this subject in detail, photographs of archaeological relics and compelling authentic historical evidence, from within 150 years of the most famous battle in English history. I will seek to convince those present, and the Inspector, that this unique site has the potential to become a national, cultural and historical treasure, which cannot be put at risk by the construction of a road through its centre, at any cost.
  8. However, it is equally important to state at the outset that I do not present a case for no road at all. The issue is not whether we have a road, but one of "where should the road go?"and "if for cultural and historical, or ecological reasons it cannot go through the site at Upper Wilting - where should it go?"
  9. In order to answer these questions I have formulated a route which addresses as many of the issues that arise as I could be expected to understand. As you will appreciate I am not an expert on matters of road construction. However I believe that with my long standing knowledge of the ground in this area, and with my limited knowledge of road construction I have been able to provide a practical and realisable alternative. This alternative is addressed as alternative S3A in this presentation.
  10. A word of explanation is required at this point, since my original route S3 is the route which was published by the Highways Agency in the local papers.
  11. I would like to show the Inspector this route from the local paper. I have numbered this page 407 in my bundle, but of course the Highways Agency have their own numbering system. I have numbered mine all together in order to simplify the cross referencing between documents and in order to keep all the relevant documents to this case in one place.
  12. As previously stated I am, like all other objectors, not an expert in road construction and am therefore completely dependent upon the expertise of the authorities within the Highways Agency to produce plans according to the best specification and within the confines of what is realistic.
  13. On 23rd December 1994 I filed the bulk of my evidence, which is incorporated within the 196 page manuscript entitled Secrets of the Norman Invasion. I shall refer to this in evidence as "my manuscript" in order to keep things brief. Accompanying this submission was a letter of same date, with a plan of an approximate route and some detail on how I saw the route being built to the best advantage. On page three I requested that the alternative route: "Crosses the Combe haven Valley at its narrowest point near its entrance in an engineered bridge". The object being to avoid all contact with the SSSI.
  14. On the same page of this letter, a copy of which I have available for you and have marked page numbers 408-411 in my bundle, is the following statement: The entrance to the Combe Haven Valley is narrow enough to allow an engineered bridge. This means absolute protection to the wildlife and fauna of the SSSI in the Combe Haven Valley. The engineering problems associated with floating the road on the current route offer the potential for a bottomless budget, due to the geophysical problems associated with the peat structures of the Combe Haven valley. Securing a southern route, which avoids the peat bogs altogether, provides an engineering solution where costs can be tied down.
  15. I therefore relied upon the Highways Agency to ensure that these instructions were followed, assuming that the route S3 which was published would incorporate these features.
  16. However in January of this year I eventually received detailed drawings, some twelve months after my submission showing in detail the structure of route S3. I was surprised to find that the section of road across the Filsham reed beds, a particularly sensitive section of the SSSI was not to be constructed as a bridge, but was to be built as an embankment and viaduct. Thus completely undermining the proposals in my letter dated 23rd December 1994.
  17. As a consequence of this I immediately requested a meeting with Dr Webbe and Mr Bromley of Mott MacDonald, the consulting engineers, which took place on 6th February this year.
  18. At that meeting I made a number of requests seeking amendment of the S3 route to include my original request that the road should 1) not encroach on the SSSI and 2) cross the Combe Haven valley by bridge at the narrowest point.
  19. The meeting was held at Ocean House and was congenial and constructive. I found Mr Bromley most helpful and we discussed the objectives which had been included in my original requests.
  20. I explained that although the road turned through a tight corner I had compared the turn with other turns on the proposed route, using the best engineering equipment available, consisting of some tracing paper from my kitchen and my 11 year old daughter's compass. I had concluded that there was room to position the route in a slightly amended form, that could accommodate my request. Mr Bromley agreed to look into the matter and report back to me as soon as possible. I told them that I had been down to the site and there appeared to be room to position the road between the SSSI and the properties in the Filsham estate.
  21. In a letter dated 9th February his year I was advised that the Highways Agency had referred my amendment to you for approval. It was explained to me that this was because it had previously been explained to me at the meeting at Ocean House that there was not enough time, or more importantly an approved budget, to prepare detailed drawing containing my amendments. However a rough line drawing would be produced based upon my instructions and it was explained to me that it would be up to the Inspector to decide upon the merit of my case, as to whether the detailed work should be done.
  22. A few days later I received what I shall refer to as S3A, the amended S3 route. However this still did not satisfy my requirements, within the scope of what I believed to be achievable, since the road line still crossed the SSSI in the southern section of the Filsham reed beds. In consequence I requested a further meeting with Mr Bromley as a matter of urgency.
  23. This meeting was held on 20th February at Ocean House. I explained again that the intention of this route was to avoid the SSSI and that the southerly section was still on an embankment. The meeting was helpful because Mr Bromley had now had a chance to examine some of the engineering aspects of my proposed route. He explained that whilst the turn was achievable, more work would be required to decide the exact line of the road. In consequence he would redraw the line in what is now presented as the final version, subject to the understanding that my request still stands, that the finished route runs as per my original instructions, which I sent him ( a copy of which I would now like to look at) this is listed in my bundle as page number 409.
  24. The section marked blue shows the amendment that I have requested (an amendment of an amendment, so to speak).
  25. This shows that whilst two houses need to be demolished, to make way for the new road, there is enough room to accommodate the bypass between the pumping station and the edge of the SSSI and the corridor of land between that part of the SSSI and the Filsham estate, before it swings westward to the Glyn Gap link junction.
  26. At the same meeting I proposed that in view of the discussions at the Inquiry with the local amenity groups, the link road on my plan to Glyn Gap be bought into the same alignment as that proposed by the local amenity groups. I understand that this route is the link road incorporated into the route that is now known as route 6A at the Inquiry.
  27. Mr Bromley was most helpful, for which I am most grateful, and the new drawing resulting from the meeting was sent to me several days later. This is marked Objectors Alternative S3 ref 10059/HWY/WIN/635, which I would now like to look at, marked page 410 in my bundle.
  28. This road line shows in principal what I seek to achieve and incorporates most of the elements of my original request to the Highways Agency. However it does not incorporate total clearance of the SSSI, in the south eastern corner, where the reed beds are located. I shall address these in more detail later. However my route now has a reduced construction cost by moving the point of crossing the railway line slightly further south to avoid Redgeland and Marsh Wood (these can be seen where the S3A route crosses under the railway line. This removes the need for a viaduct on the area of the marsh that is still effected by the road (shown in the corner by the pumping station).
  29. The effect of this route is to provide an alternative from that proposed by the Highways Agency which does not 1) cross or interfere with the main SSSI of the Combe Haven valley, thus satisfying a great majority of the objectors who are concerned with the damage caused by the road, on a viaduct through the centre of the SSSI and 2) does not cross or interfere with the site at Upper Wilting Manor, which I believe I can show is a second site of national importance.
  30. I shall seek to show that the Highways agency themselves accept that the Combe Haven valley is of national importance, at an ecological level, and under their own guidelines and directives should adopt this alternative route.
  31. It is my case that there are over-riding reasons of a Cultural Heritage, as well as environmental nature, why Upper Wilting should be avoided at all costs, providing circumstances where not one but two sites of national importance are connected and dissected by the Highways Agency route. Circumstances where adopting an alternative, and most probably cheaper route, must take preference over the more expedient damaging route. A proposed route by the highways Agency with two highly contentious interchanges and a very expensive viaduct where none is needed or indeed proven to be needed.
  32. I have tried to keep myself as up to date as possible on the documentation available and have not as yet picked up on any documents which prove the need for two interchanges, where it is apparent to all who live in the area that one, strategically situated to serve Glyne Gap, will suffice
  33. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
  34. I have been faced with a great difficulty in how to present in an understandable manner something which appears to have escaped the notice of men for nearly 1,000 years. Namely that Upper wilting Farm appears to be the site of the first camp of William the Conqueror, when they landed in England in 1066, and that it holds the secrets of that period and should be preserved for proper archaeological investigation. In other words how can I prove to the satisfaction of those present and the Inspector that Upper Wilting Farm is a unique site. How can I provide Proof of the Normans? Surely many would consider an impossible task, given the common belief that the Normans landed at Pevensey.
  35. I have decided that in order to do this I shall need to recap briefly the most important aspects of my manuscript and the information that is collated there. I shall start by looking at the historical context of my claim and then detail the archaeology which supports this. After that I will address the analysis of my work by the Highways Agency and seek to come to a conclusion in relation to the issues concerning the claim that Upper Wilting is the Norman Invasion camp site and therefore qualifies for exceptional status. After the elements of my case that relate to my own investigative work, I shall finally address the issues relating to the proposed alternative route S3A and the implications of that route in the context of the Highways Agency own written evidence.
  36. When this is completed I would be pleased to answer any questions the Highways Agency might wish to ask.
  37. Whilst I am not familiar with the new format of Public Inquiries I would like, if the opportunity is made available to me, to sum up after I have had a chance to hear the response from the Highways Agency.


RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE